Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

blog.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 150 posts

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#31

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

techsupporter wrote: post #27
axguscbklp wrote: post #26

Given that this is a time of emergency, I think that definitely a good argument can be made for relaxing copyright laws. That said, many commenters on this subject are extending the discussion into a general discussion on the value of copyright, and there I cannot fully agree with the notion that copyright is a bad thing. I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy) but one difference between me and many ot…

> I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy)... I’m not sure what you mean here; how do you try? Pirating content instead of paying for it is rather binary: you either paid the requested charge for it and obtained it in line with the mechanism the author or creator used to sell it...or you didn’t. If you have no option to pay because the creator didn’t make one available to you, that’s still piracy, isn’t…

Sometimes digital copies of things just aren't for sale, but I still want them.

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#32

Post by axguscbklp »

techsupporter wrote: post #27
axguscbklp wrote: post #26

Given that this is a time of emergency, I think that definitely a good argument can be made for relaxing copyright laws. That said, many commenters on this subject are extending the discussion into a general discussion on the value of copyright, and there I cannot fully agree with the notion that copyright is a bad thing. I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy) but one difference between me and many ot…

> I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy)... I’m not sure what you mean here; how do you try? Pirating content instead of paying for it is rather binary: you either paid the requested charge for it and obtained it in line with the mechanism the author or creator used to sell it...or you didn’t. If you have no option to pay because the creator didn’t make one available to you, that’s still piracy, isn’t…

I agree that pirating vs. not pirating a given item of content is rather binary. What I mean by "I try to limit my piracy" is that I try not to pirate too many distinct items of content.

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#33

Post by [deleted] »

Igelau wrote: post #25
ComputerGuru wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They know (and wouldn't deny) it's against normal copyright law and an infringement of the IP of the authors/publishers; they are hoping that courts would side with them as a "war-time emergency measure taken in the national interest." I am deeply appreciative of the Internet Archive which is why I probably wouldn't have taken that bet. It would be horrible if their solvency and future relied on the outcome of the in…

> It would be horrible if their solvency and future relied on the outcome of the inevitable lawsuits to follow I wonder if the wheels are already coming off. Otherwise it seems a bit excessive for IA to suddenly bet the whole house on this.

[deleted]

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#34

Post by JadeNB »

axguscbklp wrote: post #26

Given that this is a time of emergency, I think that definitely a good argument can be made for relaxing copyright laws. That said, many commenters on this subject are extending the discussion into a general discussion on the value of copyright, and there I cannot fully agree with the notion that copyright is a bad thing. I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy) but one difference between me and many ot…

Not to be rude, but so what? If piracy causes harm, do you think it makes any difference to the victims of that harm whether you know that you are causing that harm, or are consoling yourself with ideological contrivances?

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#35

Post by JadeNB »

Igelau wrote: post #25
ComputerGuru wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They know (and wouldn't deny) it's against normal copyright law and an infringement of the IP of the authors/publishers; they are hoping that courts would side with them as a "war-time emergency measure taken in the national interest." I am deeply appreciative of the Internet Archive which is why I probably wouldn't have taken that bet. It would be horrible if their solvency and future relied on the outcome of the in…

> It would be horrible if their solvency and future relied on the outcome of the inevitable lawsuits to follow I wonder if the wheels are already coming off. Otherwise it seems a bit excessive for IA to suddenly bet the whole house on this.

> Otherwise it seems a bit excessive for IA to suddenly bet the whole house on this.

What is the proper and proportionate response to a pandemic? I think that no-one knows, and, if I were in their shoes, then I'd rather history see me as the one who went too far in pursuit of the public good than the one who didn't do what I could have for fear that it was too much.

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#36

Post by comex »

hilbert42 wrote: post #30

Here we go again, more hair-trigger bitching and whining from The Authors Guild and its ilk. No matter how noble or justified the cause for copying may be, the poor little darlings just can't help themselves. They've been screaming and whinging over being supposedly hard done by with respect to copyright royalties even before that arch villain, bully and saint to copyright owners, Victor Hugo, bulldozed unfair change…

> Trouble is, this mob was so successful at Berne that ever since they've assumed that they've a god-given right to take umbrage and raise utter hell whenever anyone takes the slightest liberties with copyright—even if those actions are lawful.

It's true, they do do that even when the actions are lawful. However, in this particular case, the Internet Archive's actions are almost certainly not lawful, although the whole "public service during coronavirus crisis" angle means that they probably won't be sued for it.

Even with controlled (one-at-a-time) digital lending, although the blog post does cite multiple arguments that it counts as fair use, it has never been tested in court and I'm not particularly optimistic. But what they're currently doing is not one-at-a-time and thus not controlled digital lending. The blog post takes care to distinguish the two things – saying CDL is their legal basis "during normal times", emphasizing the "careful controls" used with CDL to ensure books are lent to "one reader at a time" – yet conspicuously omits any explanation of why their current practice would be legal.

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#37

Post by chipotle_coyote »

techsupporter wrote: post #27
axguscbklp wrote: post #26

Given that this is a time of emergency, I think that definitely a good argument can be made for relaxing copyright laws. That said, many commenters on this subject are extending the discussion into a general discussion on the value of copyright, and there I cannot fully agree with the notion that copyright is a bad thing. I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy) but one difference between me and many ot…

> I pirate stuff too (although I try to limit my piracy)... I’m not sure what you mean here; how do you try? Pirating content instead of paying for it is rather binary: you either paid the requested charge for it and obtained it in line with the mechanism the author or creator used to sell it...or you didn’t. If you have no option to pay because the creator didn’t make one available to you, that’s still piracy, isn’t…

I think I get what the OP meant, or at least I have my interpretation of it.

I used to be fairly blasé about pirating software, justifying it with the belief that the prices were just too high. I came to believe that was really a pretty weak justification. I went through a somewhat similar change of belief later when it came to video; it's easy to talk yourself into the belief that copying TV shows and movies for free is somehow a strike against big corporations, but unless you're up for entirely reinventing the way our economy works, at the end of the day somebody really does have to pay for those shows and movies to be created, and pirating them is essentially declaring "I want to enjoy this work, I just want somebody else to pay for me doing so."

But:

There are cases where you might want to give your money to a creator or publisher and you literally can't. Up until a few years ago, no amount of money would have been able to get you the whole series of WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, especially with the original music, for instance. The soundtrack for The Last Unicorn was never released on CD anywhere but Germany, as far as I can tell, and it's become a rare, expensive collector's item. There are hundreds of TV shows like this, thousands of movies, thousands of records, thousands of novels, thousands of programs -- and I'm probably vastly underestimating each of those categories. Their analog releases, if they were ever made, are long out of print and they were never officially released digitally.

And, I'll admit, in those cases I'm perfectly okay with piracy. The rights holder either can't or won't release it, and you can't get it legally. One can argue in such a case you'd have a moral obligation to buy an official release if and when it's made, perhaps, but that may never happen.

If what

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#38

Post by mcguire »

hilbert42 wrote: post #30

Here we go again, more hair-trigger bitching and whining from The Authors Guild and its ilk. No matter how noble or justified the cause for copying may be, the poor little darlings just can't help themselves. They've been screaming and whinging over being supposedly hard done by with respect to copyright royalties even before that arch villain, bully and saint to copyright owners, Victor Hugo, bulldozed unfair change…

But, but, but...Neil Gaiman will starve to death!

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731637

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#39

Post by tomrod »

comex wrote: post #36
hilbert42 wrote: post #30

Here we go again, more hair-trigger bitching and whining from The Authors Guild and its ilk. No matter how noble or justified the cause for copying may be, the poor little darlings just can't help themselves. They've been screaming and whinging over being supposedly hard done by with respect to copyright royalties even before that arch villain, bully and saint to copyright owners, Victor Hugo, bulldozed unfair change…

> Trouble is, this mob was so successful at Berne that ever since they've assumed that they've a god-given right to take umbrage and raise utter hell whenever anyone takes the slightest liberties with copyright—even if those actions are lawful. It's true, they do do that even when the actions are lawful. However, in this particular case, the Internet Archive's actions are almost certainly not lawful, although the who…

Lots of physical books not available otherwise due to lockdown. I figure that is sufficient justification.

Re: Internet Archive responds: Why we released the National Emergency Library

#40

Post by mcguire »

phendrenad2 wrote: post #12

Anyone know which authors have opted out? It would be interesting to hear their reasons why in their own words.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22731637

The linked article mentions Colson Whitehead, Neil Gaiman, and Alexander Chee, and the Twitter threads have other authors, although I didn't recognize any of them.

Post reply on HN